Pack YP equal or double standard

Recommended Posts

Read what Sarbaugh has said. He keeps saying that the changes are consistent with the oath and law. This means treating people equally. So while not specifically stating he’s doing it for equality the reference to the oath and law implies equality...

That's a huge stretch.

Since clearly I'm not the only one confused by your notion of equality in the oath and law, maybe you can elaborate on that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All confusion and unfairness can be avoided if all cub packs had 2 female leaders.

A set of 2 female leaders can always be trusted.

A set of two female leaders can lead:

1 All Girl Packs
2 All Boy Packs
3 Co-ed Packs

A set of 2 male leaders can not be trusted with girls, therefore are inferior to female leaders who can be trusted with boys and girls. Women are the universal leaders, having men around just confuses things and increases risks.

(By the way, I am a Male Cub Scout Den Leader)
Just stating the facts, I do not like the facts, but there they are.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Since clearly I'm not the only one confused by your notion of equality in the oath and law, maybe you can elaborate on that.

Wait...you are saying that Scouts should not treat people fairly and equally? I gotta say, I am dumb-founded by this thread this morning.

Saying that the recent changes to the membership policy allowing "diversity" was not aimed at giving equality to potential members is like saying there's only one reason it rains. In every action/event, there are a series of things that combine to make that event happen.

Was the primary reason for the policy change equality? No.

Was the primary reason for the change to increase membership? No.

Was the primary reason money? No.

[Insert any other argument here]

HOWEVER, combine all those things and you have one of the many reasons BSA made the policy changes. So to say that equality is not one of those reasons is totally absurd. The Oath the and Law imply that we treat people equally. To argue otherwise says that you would allow your Scouts to treat people unequally, which we all know you wouldn't. Yes, yes, we don't help all old ladies across the street (or even all ladies), but that's a strawman. There is an expectation that by opening our membership to girls and gays and other people that we are giving them equal treatment. We will treat girls as we do boys; no one will get special treatment in a general sense. THAT is the point. Not some silly argument of the many permutations on how we are all different.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Equal is different than fair. I have 2 kids- a son and a daughter. I try to treat them fairly. To treat them equally would be a disservice to both of them, as their needs are individual- based on gender, age and interests, just as a start. The same thing goes for the Scouts in my Troop. They all get fair treatment, as they should. But the SPL doesn't have the same needs as a Scout who has just crossed over from Cub Scouts. Not sure why anyone is having such a hard time grasping the concept.

As far as YPT goes, my opinion is that any new YPT will be a combination of the current (and horribly done) YPT course and the Venturing YPT (which is much better put together). I think that requiring coed leadership in a coed setting should be the standard. But, the double standard, as set forth in the materials released, is certainly more focused on CYA. This shouldn't be news to anyone, regardless of the recent climate in gender relations.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When male Scouters are treated differently from female Scouters with regard to YPT, that is unequal. And unfair.

You suggested that I believed that scouts should not treat people fairly and equally, in response to a comment I made about equality in regards to the oath and law. Now you're talking about Scouters and YPT.

If you're going to erroneously attributes words to me, at least get your fake story straight.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You suggested that I believed that scouts should not treat people fairly and equally, in response to a comment I made about equality in regards to the oath and law. Now you're talking about Scouters and YPT.

If you're going to erroneously attributes words to me, at least get your fake story straight.

No. That is what you inferred.

I said that the Oath and Law implies we -- all Scouts and Scouter, including national and our national leaders -- treat everyone equally. I also said that while "equality" is not mentioned as part of the Oath and Law, treating people equally and fairly is implied. So, in creating a standard by which female Scouters are treated differently than male Scouters, national is creating a double standard and not treating everyone equally.

I also said that we do treat people differently based on needs and certain special situations, in general we should strive to treat people equal based on things like sex, and to do otherwise was unfair and against the Oath and Law.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is one thing to disagree. It is entirely another to be purposely obtuse merely to further one side of an argument. As leaders I expect a bit higher standard than I have seen on display from some here. If this is the future of Scouting, I am deeply saddened.